[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14925

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00565-WTH-PRL

GARY ROBINSON, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

FCC COLEMAN - USP II WARDEN, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 5, 2019)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Gary Robinson, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief. Robinson argues that he was denied 

Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

due process concerning a disciplinary action that reduced his good conduct time, 

thereby increasing the length of his imprisonment. After careful review, we affirm.

When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition, we review the 

district court’s findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. Coloma 

v. Holder, 445 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2006). “Clear error is a highly deferential 

standard of review.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 

(11th Cir.2005). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is 

evidence to support it, “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quotation 

omitted). We may affirm the district court’s decision for any reason supported by 

the record. United States v. Al–Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). 

We’ve explained that “[d]etermining whether one was deprived of liberty 

presents a unique challenge with prisoners, who are already deprived of their liberty 

in the ordinary understanding of the word.” Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 

1290 (11th Cir. 1999). Procedural safeguards are demanded, however, if a prisoner 

is subjected to a change in the conditions of confinement “so severe that it essentially 

exceeds the sentence imposed by the court,” or if a prisoner is deprived of some 

consistently bestowed benefit that “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the 

inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 1291 (quotation 

Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

omitted). We’ve also said that the deprivation of good conduct time qualifies as an 

“atypical and significant hardship.” Id.

In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court set out the hearing procedures that 

must be satisfied to meet the standards of due process in the prison setting. 418 U.S. 

539 (1974). According to Wolff, prisoners must receive: (1) written notice of the 

charges against them at least 24 hours before the corresponding hearing; (2) an 

opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, so long as doing so 

is consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals; and (3) a written 

statement by the factfinder outlining the evidence relied on and the reasons for the 

disciplinary action. Id. at 563-67. 

Here, the district court did not err in denying Robinson’s § 2241 petition 

because the undisputed facts reflect that prison officials afforded him due process 

throughout his disciplinary proceeding. Specifically, Robinson received a copy of 

his incident report, detailing the charges against him, almost three years before his 

disciplinary hearing. Prison officials advised Robinson of his right to call witnesses 

and present documentary evidence at the hearing, but he declined to do either. 

Further, Robinson obtained the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s written statement that 

outlined the evidence relied upon and the reason for the disciplinary action. On this 

record, prison officials afforded Robinson due process in connection with the 

Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

hearing that led to his loss of good conduct time, and the district court did not err in 

denying his § 2241 petition based on that finding. See id. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 18-14925 Date Filed: 06/05/2019 Page: 4 of 4